REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

v. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY,  correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013 petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his
opposition thereto.
Facts:
In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth
certificate, particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and
On March 8, 2004, Uy filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name which she
of Live Birth. Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog has been known for since childhood, including her legal documents such as
City. She alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the birth
illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay Her Certificate of Live certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname “Lugsanay”
Birth shows that her full name is “Anita Sy” when in fact she is allegedly instead of “Sy” and citizenship of “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” The changes,
known to her family and friends as “Norma S. Lugsanay.” She further claimed however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s
that her school records, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of filiation and citizenship. In changing her surname from “Sy” (which is the
Medicine Certificate, and passport bear the name “Norma S. Lugsanay.” She surname of her father) to “Lugsanay” (which is the surname of her mother),
also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering that her parents were she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in
never married, so she had to follow the surname of her mother. She also changing her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights
contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are substantial.
bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.
It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v.
Uy allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of Valencia that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and
the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on her name the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
and citizenship which was supposedly granted. However, the National themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. The pronouncement of
Statistics Office (NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition the Court in that case is illuminating:
before the RTC. It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the
RTC granted. CTA Affirmed. correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one
involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as
Issue: Is the petition dismissible for failure to implead indispensable parties. controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in
nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a
SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This
civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry
claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties
parties to the proceeding. aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
proceeding. x x x
SEC. 4. Notice and Publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the
court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the What is meant by “appropriate adversary proceeding?” Black’s Law Dictionary
same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons defines “adversary proceeding” as follows:
named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte
published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to
newspaper of general circulation in the province. the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes
an adoption proceeding.22 alaw virtualaw library

SEC. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or

claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is
a Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In
filing the petition, however, she seeks the correction of her first name and
surname, her status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” and her citizenship
from “Chinese” to “Filipino.” Thus, respondent should have impleaded and
notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as
the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections
respondent wanted to make.

The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the
nature of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition
and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Summons
must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process
to afford th person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so
chooses.39cralaw virtualaw libra

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation
or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and
controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court is mandated.44 If the entries in
the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary
proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may
be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or
other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be
detrimental and far reaching.45 cralaw virtualaw library
 No. The true and real name of a person is that given to him and entered in the civil
register.

HATIMA C. YASIN, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, HADJI HASAN S. While it is true that under Article 376 of the Civil Code, no person can change his name
CENTI, vs.THE HONORABLE JUDGE SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT THIRD SHARI'A or surname without judicial authority, nonetheless, the only name that may be changed is
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Zamboanga City. G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 the true and official name recorded in the Civil Register. Thus, this Court in Ng Yao
Siong v. Republic (16 SCRA 483 [1966]), held:
Facts:
In a proceeding for a change of name the following question may crop up:
On May 5, 1990, Hatima C. Yasin filed in the Shari'a District Court in Zamboanga City a What is the name to be changed? By Article 408 of the Civil Code a
"Petition to resume the use of maiden name" (Sp. Proc. No. 06-3). The petition reads: person's birth must be entered in the civil register. So it is, that the civil
register records his name. That name in the civil register, for legal
purposes, is his real name. And correctly so, because the civil register is
1. That she is of legal age, a divorcee, a Muslin Filipino and a resident of
an official record of the civil status of persons. A name given to a person
Suterville, Zamboanga City, Philippines, and is duly represented in this
in the church record or elsewhere or by which he is known in the
act by her elder brother and attorney-in-fact, HADJI HASAN S. CENTI by
community — when at variance with that entered in the civil register — is
virtue of an instrument of a Special Power of Attorney, original copy of
unofficial and cannot be recognized as his real name.
which is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A" hereof;
We therefore rule that for the purposes of an application for change of
2. That she was formerly married to a certain Hadji Idris Yasin, also a
name under Article 376 of the Civil Code, the only name that may be
Muslim Filipino in accordance with Muslim rites and customs, and who is
changed is the true or official name recorded in the civil register.
now residing at Barangay Recodo, Zamboanga City, but sometime on
March 13, 1984, they were granted a decree of divorce by the Mindanao
Islamic Center Foundation, Inc., in accordance with Islamic Law, the Petitioner's registered name is Hatima Centi Y. Saul. In the instant petition, petitioner
divorce rites was officiated by Ustadz Sharif Jain Jali as evidenced by his does not seek to change her registered maiden name but, instead, prays that she be
Certification, dated march 13, 1984, copy of which is hereto attached as allowed to resume the use of her maiden name in view of the dissolution of her marriage
Annex "B" to form an integral part hereof; to Hadji Idris Yasin, by virtue of a decree of divorce granted in accordance with Muslim
law.
3. That, thereafter the former husband Hadji Idris Yasin contracted
another marriage to another woman; The divorce becomes irrevocable after observance of a period of waiting called idda (Art.
56, PD 1086) the duration of which is 3 monthly courses after termination of the marriage
by divorce (Art. 57[b], PD 1083). Under Article 187, PD 1083, the Civil Code of the
WHEREFORE, invoking the provisions of Article 143, par. 1(c) of
Philippines, the Rules of Court and other existing laws, insofar as they are not
Presidential Decree No. 1083 in relation to Article 371 (2) of the New Civil
inconsistent with the provisions of this Code (the Code of Muslim Personal Laws), shall
Code, and after due notice and hearing, it is most respectfully prayed of
be applied suppletorily.
this Honorable Court that petitioner be allowed to resume the use of her
maiden name Hatima Centi y Saul.
Even under the Civil Code, the use of the husband's surname during the marriage (Art.
370, Civil Code), after annulment of the marriage (Art. 371, Civil Code) and after the
Court dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance.
death of the husband (Art. 373, Civil Code) is permissive and not obligatory except in
case of legal separation (Art. 372, Civil Code). Thus, Articles 370 and 371 of the Civil
Issue: Whether or not a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a Code provides:
petition for change of name.
Art. 370. A married woman may use:
Ruling:
 (1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband's surname,
or

(2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname, or

(3) Her husband's full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his
wife, such as "Mrs."

Art. 371. In case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty
party, she shall resume her maiden name and surname. If she is the
innocent spouse, she may resume her maiden name and surname.
However, she may choose to continue employing her former husband's
surname, unless:

(1) The court decrees otherwise, or

(2) She or the former husband is married again to another person.

According to Tolentino:

. . . Under the present article of our Code, however, the word "may" is
used, indicating that the use of the husband's surname by the wife is
permissive rather than obligatory. We have no law which provides that
the wife shall change her name to that of the husband upon marriage.
This is in consonance with the principle that surnames indicate descent. It
seems, therefore, that a married woman may use only her maiden name
and surname. She has an option, but not a duty, to use the surname of
the husband in any of the ways provided by this Article. (Tolentino, Civil
Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 724, 1983 ed.)

When a woman marries a man, she need not apply and/or seek judicial authority to use
her husband's name by prefixing the word "Mrs." before her husband's full name or by
adding her husband's surname to her maiden first name. The law grants her such right
(Art. 370, Civil Code). Similarly, when the marriage ties or vinculum no longer exists as in
the case of death of the husband or divorce as authorized by the Muslim Code, the
widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil status in
order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former husband's name is optional
and not obligatory for her (Tolentino, Civil Code, p. 725, 1983 ed.; Art. 373, Civil Code).
When petitioner married her husband, she did not change her name but only her civil
status. Neither was she required to secure judicial authority to use the surname of her
husband after the marriage as no law requires it.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE The Intermediate Appellate Court has correctly ruled that at the time Kenneth filed his
APPELLATE COURT and KENNETH WONG MAN LEUNG alias KIANA SO, also petition for change of name, the records of the Local Civil Registrar officially showed his
known as KENNETH WONG MAN LEUNG, etc., re G.R. No. 70513 October 13, 1986 name to be Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana So, this being the name under which
he sought and was granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization pursuant to PD No. 836.
Facts: Private respondent, hereafter simply referred to as Kenneth, was born in His petition did therefore state his real or official name  and fulfilled the jurisdictional
Hongkong on November 3, 1953. He came to the Philippines as a British subject requirement in this regard. Moreover, the petition also alleged his former name as a
sometime in 1969. He was then known as Wong Man Leung, which is the name set out British subject, "Wong Man Leung" as then appeared in his alien certificate of
in his Alien Certificate of Registration  as well as in his SSS Personal Data Record.  He registration.
was baptized on March 2, 1975 at the Parish Church of Sta. Maria at Iloilo City, and
given the Christian name, Kenneth; his baptismal certificate declares his full name as The finding by the Intermediate Appellate Court that the evidence established sufficient
Kenneth Wong Man Leung. Ten months later, in the same church, he married Maylinda justification for a change of name-i.e., there is a sincere desire on Kenneth's part to
Yap, his name in the marriage contract being Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana So. adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of his former nationality which will unduly hamper
He was naturalized as a Filipino citizen on February 10, 1976 in accordance with his social and business fife; his change of name will do away with aliases which should
Presidential Decree No. 836. In his Certificate of Naturalization, his name is given as be discouraged, apart from the fact that it will avoid confusion and will be "for the.
Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana so; and this, of course, is how his name is convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with
recorded in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. Other documents set forth him  — is a finding of fact which this Court can not and will not review in the premises.
his various names and aliases: the certificate of birth of his son, Dexter, states his name
as Kiana Chuen Co; the SSS member's Data Change or Additional Report states his
name as Wong Man Leung Kenneth (Kiana So); his income tax return declares his name
as Leung, Kenneth Wong Man, and the official receipt evidencing payment of the tax has
his name written as Leung, Kenneth, the official records of Solid Gas Inc., Iloilo, of which
he is the General Manager, show his name to be Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana
So; his residence tax receipt and all the clearances obtained by him from the City Court,
the Court of First Instance, the City Fiscal, and the police authorities of Iloilo City, give his
name also as Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana So. It was his wish to rid himself of
such a burdensomely long name as Kenneth Wong Man Leung alias Kiana So and to
avoid confusion resulting from inadvertent but frequent rearrangements of its various
parts; his desire to adopt not only a shorter and more easily Identifiable name, but also a
Filipino name which would associate himself more closely with his countrymen by
adoption; and the further fact that he has since come to be publicly known as Kenneth
Kiana So, which prompted Kenneth to seek and obtain judicial approval of his change of
name.

Issue: Whether there was neither allegation nor proof on Kenneth’s part of “the name by
which he was registered in Hokong upon his birth,” a fatal defect.

Whether the evidence failed to show proper and reasonable cause to change the name.

Ruling:

The assertions are not persuasive and will be rejected

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME. DOLORES GEMORA To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mother's second husband, who is not
PADILLA, in representation of her minor children MICHAEL, ABIGAIL, RAFAEL, their father, could result in confusion in their paternity. It could also create the suspicion
GABRIEL and ANNABELLE, all surnamed COPUACO, except the last whose that said minors, who were born during the coverture of their mother with her first
surname is CO,  vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. L-28274 April 30, husband, were in fact sired by Edward Padilla, thus bringing their legitimate status into
1982 discredit.

Facts: The case before Us is not of first impression. In Moore vs. Republic,  a case involving the
same factual melieu, We held that:
Dolores Gemora and Vincent Co, a Chinese national, were married on May 5, 1954. This
matrimonial union begot five children, namely: Michael Copuaco, Abigail Copuaco, Our laws do not authorize a legitimate child to use the surname of a
Rafael Copuaco, Gabriel Copuaco, and Annabelle Co. person who is not his father. Article 364 of the Civil Code specifically
provides that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of their
Sometime in November 1960, Vincent Co left the conjugal abode in Caloocan City and father, and Article 369 of the same Code provides that in case of
has since never returned to, or even visited, his family. It is alleged that he was a fugitive annulment of a voidable marriage the children conceived before the
from justice, having been charged with several offenses of estafa before the Court of annulment shall principally use the surname of the father, and
First Instance of Manila 1 and the City Court of Caloocan City.  considering by analogy the effect of a decree of divorce, it is correctly
concluded that the children who are conceived before such a decree
Because of his continuous absence, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, on petition should also be understood as carrying the surname of the real father.
of Dolores Gemora, issued an order dated December 29, 1964 in Sp. Proc. No. 1776,
declaring Vincent Co as an absentee.  If a child born out of a lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of
the second husband of the mother, should the first husband die or be
On October 30, 1965, Dolores Gemora contracted a second marriage with Sgt. Edward separated by a decree of divorce, there may result a confusion as to his
Padilla, an Americas serviceman stationed at Clark Air Base, Angeles City. The five real paternity. In the long run the change may redound to the prejudice of
minor children, who had been living with said spouses, were generously supported by the child in the community. While the purpose which may have animated
Padilla and were treated by him with affection as if they were his own children. petitioner, the minor's mother, is plausible and may run along the feeling
of cordiality and spiritual relationship that pervades among the members
of the family of her second husband, there is a legal barrier which cannot
This harmonious relation existing between said minors and their stepfather prompted
at present be overlooked or brushed aside. ...
Dolores Gemora to file the instant petition for change of the minors' surname from
"Copuaco" or "Co" to "Padilla", which petition was granted by the lower court after due
notice and hearing. Apart from the legal obstacles discussed above, We consider the instant action taken by
petitioner in behalf of her minor children to be premature. Indeed, the matter of change of
their surname should better be left to the judgment and discretion of the children
Issue: Dies our laws authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person not
themselves when they reach the age of maturity. If in their adulthood they want to
their father.
change their surname, then they themselves or any of them may take such appropriate
action as the law may permit.
Ruling:

We find merit in the contention of the Solicitor General that our laws do not authorize
legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not their father. Said minors
are the legitimate children of Vincent Co; and Article 364 of the Civil Code explicitly
provides that "legitimate children ... shall principally use the surname of their father."
In the Matter of the Change of Names of DIONESIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR., and The change of name is allowed only when there are proper and reasonable causes for
BOMBI ROBERTO DIVINAGRACIA to DIONESIO NALDOZA and BOMBI ROBERTO such change (Sec. 5, Rule 103, Rules of Court). Where, as in this case, the petitioners
NALDOZA, respectively. ZOSIMA NALDOZA, as natural guardian and guardian ad are minors, the courts should take into account whether the change of name would
litem of said minors,  vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUDGE FERNANDO redound their welfare or would prejudice them.
S. RUIZ of the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch IV,  G.R. No. L-55538 March
15, 1982 Where the petitioner, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino mother and a Japanese, elected
Philippine citizenship, and her older brother and sister were using their mother's
Facts: Zosima Naldoza was married to Dionesio Divinagracia on May 30, 1970. They surname, and the petitioner felt embarrassed in using her Japanese father's surname
begot two children named Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi Roberto who were born on October (Oshita) because of the ill-feeling harbored by some Filipinos against the Japanese, and
23, 1970 and July 22, 1973, respectively. there was no showing that her desire to use the maternal surname (Bartolome) was
motivated by any fraudulent purpose or that the change of surname would prejudice
Zosima's husband left her after she confronted him with his previous marriage with public interest, her petition to change her surname from Oshita to Bartolome was granted
another woman. He never returned to the conjugal abode. He allegedly swindled (Oshita vs. Republic, L-21180, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 700).
Congressman Maglana in the sum of P50,000.00, one Galagar in the sum of P10,000.00
also Eloy Gallentes and other persons. Where the petitioner's name in the civil registry is Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva
Duterte, Duterte being the surname of her father Filomeno, who was married to her
The classmates of Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi Roberto allegedly teased them about their mother, Estrella Alfon, but the petitioner since infancy has used the name Estrella S.
father being a swindler. Two criminal cases for estafa were filed in court against the Alfon, particularly in the school and voting records, there is reasonable ground for
father. allowing her to change her surname from Duterte to Alfon. Such a change would avoid
confusion (Alfon vs. Republic, G.R. No. 51201, May 29, 1980,97 SCRA 858).
Desirous of obliterating any connection between her two minor children and their
scapegrace father, Zosima, on August 10, 1978, filed in the Court of First Instance of The instant case is easily distinguishable from the Oshita and AIfon cases where the
Bohol a petition wherein she prayed that the surname of her two children be changed petitioners were already of age.
from Divinagracia to Naldoza, her surname (Special Proceeding No. 768). After due
publication and hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for change of name. The
reasons adduced for eliminating the father's surname are not substantial enough to
Issue: Whether the minors should be allowed to discontinue using their father's surname justify the petition. To allow the change of surname would cause confusion as to the
and should use only their mother's surname. minors' parentage and might create the impression that the minors are illegitimate since
they would carry the maternal surname only. That would be inconsistent with their
Ruling legitimate status as indicated in their birth records (Exh. C and D).

The minors Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi Roberto, who are presumably legitimate, are As was said in that In re Epstein 200 N.Y.S. 897, "the child should, and in the course of
supposed to bear principally the surname Divinagracia, their father's surname (Art. 364, time must, know of his parentage. " If, when he fully appreciates the circumstances and
Civil Code). is capable of selecting a name for himself, he wants to use his mother's surname only
and to avoid using his father's surname, then he should be the one to apply for a change
of surname. See Anno., 53 ALR2d 914.
To allow them, at their mother's behest, to bear only their mother's surname (which they
are entitled to use together with their father's surname) and to discard altogether their
father's surname thus removing the prima-facie evidence of their paternal provenance or
ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the minors and their father should be
consulted. The mother's desire should not be the sole consideration.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGES OF NAME OF GERTRUDES JOSEFINA DEL In this appeal the Solicitor General contends (1) that the lower court erred in finding as
PRADO, THRU HER NATURAL GUARDIAN CORAZON ADOLFO CALDERON, vs. proper and reasonable ground for the change of the surname of the petitioner the reason
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. L-18127             April 5, 1967 that petitioner's present surname carries the stigma of illegitimacy, and (2) that the lower
court erred in declaring "that although the law is specific that petitioner shall principally
Facts: use the surname of the father yet it does not follow that petitioner is prohibited from using
other surnames when justified."1
On July 23, 1959, Gertrudes Josefina del Prado, a minor, through her mother and natural
guardian, Corazon Adolfo Calderdon, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Issue: Whether the lower court's order granting the petition is, based upon "proper and
Davao, praying that her name "Gertrudes Josefina del Prado" be changed to "Getrudes reasonable cause" as required by Section 5 of Rule 103 of the new Rules of Court.
Josefina Calderon." It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is an illegitimate child,
born on March 17, 1956, out of a bigamous marriage contracted by Manuel del Prado Ruling: A petition to change the name of an infant, as in this case, should be granted
with Corazon Adolfo; that the surname "Del Prado" which the petitioner carries is a only where to do so is clearly for the best interest of the child. When the mother of the
stigma of illegitimacy, by reason of which she has become the subject of unfair petitioner filed the instant petition she had in mind what she believed was for the best
comments; that the surname which the petitioner carries would constitute a handicap in interest of her child considering that her husband Romeo C. Calderon is the one
her life in later years, and would give cause for constant irritation in her social relations supporting the child and that he is agreeable to the child's using his surname. The
with other people; that petitioner is living with her mother who is now married to Engineer mother had considered the generous attitude of her husband as an opportunity for her to
Romeo C. Calderon; and that it is the desire of the petitioner to have her surname promote the personality, and enhance the dignity, of her daughter, by eliminating what
changed from "Del Prado" to "Calderon "which is the surname of her foster father, the constitutes a stigma of illegitimacy which her child would continue to bear if her surname
husband of her mother. is that of her illegitimate father.

The publication of the order for the hearing of the petition was duly made. We are satisfied that the facts and circumstances as borne out by the record amply
justify the change of the surname of the petitioner, as ordered by the lower court . We
On July 11, 1960, the Provincial Fiscal of Davao, representing the Solicitor General, filed have held that the matter whether to grant or deny a petition for a change of name is left
an opposition to the petition upon the ground that the change of surname of the petition to the sound discretion of the court,2 and in the present case We believe that the court a
is unwarranted, considering that said petitioner was born out of a bigamous marriage and quo has exercised its discretion in a judicious way when it granted the petition.
as such she has the status of an acknowledged natural child by legal fiction and under
the law she should bear the surname of her father Manuel del Prado; and that the The Solicitor General expresses an apprehension that because the petitioner here is of
change of the surname of the petitioner would be prejudicial to the rights and interest tender age, who cannot as yet understand and appreciate the value of the change of her
which she has by virtue of the judgment in Civil Case No. 2272 of the Court of First name, may be prejudiced in her rights under the law. This apprehension is dispelled by
Instance of Davao, annulling the marriage of her mother, Corazon Adolfo, to Manuel del the pronouncement of this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Makalintal, as follow:
Prado, and would also be prejudicial to her rights as conferred upon her by law. Counsel
for the petitioner filed in reply to the opposition, the provincial fiscal filed a supplemental ... But a change of name as authorized under Rule 103 does not by itself define,
opposition, and counsel for the petitioner filed a reply to the supplemental opposition. 1äwphï1.ñët
or affect a change in, one's existing family relations, or in the rights and duties
flowing therefrom; nor does it create new family rights and duties where none
After hearing the court a quo issued an order, under date of July 28, 1960, granting the before was existing. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil status, or
petition and ordering the change of the name of the petitioner from "Gertrudes Josefina, citizenship. What is altered is only the name, which is that word or combination of
del Prado," to "Gertrudes Josefina Calderon." The dispositive portion of the order of the words by which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears as a
court further states: "This order, however, shall not operate to deprive the petitioner of label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him,
her status, rights and obligations as recognized by law." or in speaking of or dealing with him (38 Am. Jur. 596). (In Re Petition for
Change of Name of Joselito Yu, Juan S. Barrera vs. Republic of the Philippines,
From the above-mentioned order the provincial fiscal, representing the Solicitor General, L-20874, May 25, 1966)
appealed to this Court.
https://fb.watch/cyWQleAj2W/